On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:36:23 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:32:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:14:22 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > People do not expect code under arch/i386/ to be used by code under 
> > > arch/x86_64/ and vice versa.
> > 
> > [OT: it drives me batshit that we ended up including stuff in both directions]
> 
> Why? 

It's more complex, obviously.  More surprising.  It used to be the case that
arch/x86^4 files were xx86_64 and arch/i386 files were i386 and possibly
x86_64.  Now it's the case that arch/x86_64 files are x86_64 and maybe i386
and arch/i386 files are i386 and maybe x86_64.  Additional and quite
unnecessary complexity.

I mean, how often do x86_64 changes in your tree break i386?  Once every
3ish weeks would be my guess.  Often this will be because the person making
(and reviewing) the x86_64 change didn't know (or forgot) that the file is
also used by x86_64.

quoted text
> Anyways, i wouldn't have a problem with putting the already shared
> files into a different directory or move it over to one of the architectures, 
> although I must admit I personally wouldn't see a big benefit from it. But if 
> it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling I'm all for it.

Doing something like that would reduce complexity, reduce surprise and
increase maintainability.  That's more than warm-and-fuzzies.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/